""While the income of a minority is increasing exponentially, that of the majority is crumbling. This imbalance results from ideologies which uphold the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation, and thus deny the right of control to States, which are themselves charged with providing for the common good. A new, invisible and at times virtual tyranny is established, one which unilaterally and irremediably imposes its own laws and rules." "

"Ethics – naturally, not the ethics of ideology – makes it possible, in my view, to create a balanced social order that is more humane. In this sense, I encourage the financial experts and the political leaders of your countries to consider the words of Saint John Chrysostom: "Not to share one’s goods with the poor is to rob them and to deprive them of life. It is not our goods that we possess, but theirs" (Homily on Lazarus, 1:6 – PG 48, 992D)."

David...i'm in agreement here. What's the point, though? I don't think anyone is saying we should not help people without healthcare, we are arguing whether or not Obamacare was the right way to do it. Not sure what you're getting at.

Instead of so much vitriol and criticism from the tea party and anarchists here, can I please hear a suggestion or two about what you would have rather had for health care reform? Obviously the current system is not sustainable, nor fair. So what would you prefer?

To answer your question seriously, when Republicans are asked, they say, first repeal Obamacare, then negotiate a replacement.

One advantage to that argument, is they don't have to agree on what that replacement is.

If the Republicans, among themselves, talked specifics, they wouldn't agree. It's much easier to agree that they don't like Obamacare.

If the Republicans did propose anything specific, then you could criticize the specifics and people might not like it. People may decide Obamacare is actually better. Or "Medicare for all". Again, much easier to agree that Obamacare is no good.

1) Repeal Obamacare: There is a precedent for repealing highly unpopular and misguided laws: the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988. Recently, more than 70 percent of Missouri residents rejected a key provision of Obamacare­ ,the requirement that individuals purchase a health insurance plan designed and approved by government bureaucrats. The House of Representatives even voted recently to repeal one provision of Obamacare that will impose draconian paperwork requirements on millions of small businesses. The easiest way to address all these grievances: repeal Obamacare.

2) Promote Personal Control Through Tax Equity: Today, workers who purchase coverage through their employer receive an unlimited tax break on the value of their health care benefits. However, those who purchase coverage on their own receive no comparable tax break. Ideally, the current tax exclusion should be replaced (or at the very least capped) with a system of universal tax credits for taxpayers. Medicaid and SCHIP spending should also be redirected to help low-income individuals and families purchase private health insurance

3) Fix Current Government Health Programs: Medicare should be reformed into a defined-contribution system in which the government provides a contribution for benefits and seniors are able to apply their contribution to the health plan that suits them best.

4) Promote Federal/State Partnerships: A one-size-fits-all federal solution cannot accommodate the unique and diverse health care challenges facing the states. The federal government should promote interstate commerce in health insurance, extend certain protections for those who maintain continuous coverage, and provide states with technical assistance and relief from federal rules that inhibit innovation.

5) Provide Portability: Individuals, not the government, should be able to choose the health coverage that best suits their needs. To accomplish this, private health insurance must be portable--that is, owned by Americans so they can take their package from job to job.

There is no better symbol for the overreach of the progressive socialized medicine movement into the daily lives of all Americans than Obamacare.

Another good set of conservative, common sense solutions can be seen here:

Not only is it your fault (that it's failing and, all the others that were opposed to oh care) that people will be dying today because they can't afford the flu shots or row-tater surgey, but you can't come up with a solution. I think maybe you should use bullet points, and a title... Yes, if you had a title, then that would be a plan.

If Medicare is defined contribution, then it's like the government throws up it's hands, gives people some money, and it's up to them to get health care.

As costs continue to escalate, the government is fine, they continue to pay that amount, but the people have to pay more and more out of pocket.

You need to address the ever increasing cost of health care.

I agree, having employers pay for health insurance doesn't make a lot of sense, but again, the individuals will then be stuck with ever increasing costs. Now, employers are motivated to fix this problem.

And employers will quit paying for health care, fine, but they probably won't direct that amount towards higher wages so the employee can afford it. That could just turn into a big gift for big employers.

Better to have a tax like social security. An employee portion and an employer portion, or if you're self employed you have to pay both. Medicare for all.

You could still have health insurance companies administer it. Like with Medicare part D for prescriptions, and I think most people have a Medicare Plus insurance policy.

Have copays to encourage people not to over-use.

Take programs that work, like the Mayo Clinic or Cleveland Clinic that have recommendations for which treatments are effective and cost effective. If you say "government bureaucrats" enough people will be fearful, but if you say "doctors based on data to show what really works", maybe it will make more sense. "Death panels" is a another good term if you want people to be fearful.

A friend of mine recently paid, out of pocket, or maybe from his HSA, I don't remember which.... for a scan of some sort, cat, MRI, again fuzzy on this too. He knew he was going to have the procedure done so he did some shopping. The second estimate was $1,000 less than the first at $3k. When he went to pay he asked what the cash discount would be? He got them down to about $1,500.

If the tab would have been picked up by his insurer, I can promise you he would have made only the one call.

That makes logical sense Fred, I agree with you, good for the patient to have "skin in the game".

I was taking an expensive blood pressure medicine. Copay went up to $60 a month. That motivated me to switch to cheap generic. Now it's $4 a month which is so cheap I get 6 month supply and pay out of pocket.

A lot of times care is urgent and you don't have time to shop.

An insurance company would be in a better position to shop for the cheapest rate.

Some people have a hard time figuring out how to negotiate.

A lot of times the MRI isn't required, just done to be defensive. If there were better defined protocols that say when a MRI is justified it would help doctors say no.

The reasons health care is so expensive are many and there's no one simple solution.

Jerry, protocols defined by who exactly? This is why you and I don't think alike and will probably never agree on much of this. The dr needs to make the call with the consent of the patient (considering the expense), not the inusurer, or risk management. It ain't rockit surgery